In what the French press has dubbed the trial of the decade, Dominique de Villepin – who headed President Jacques Chirac’s government for two years from 2005 – is accused of smearing his long-time rival in a murky dirty-tricks campaign known as the Clearstream affair.
The hearings – scheduled to last for a month – will seek to discover whether Villepin had prior knowledge in late 2003 when Sarkozy’s name was added to a faked list of account-holders at the Clearstream bank of Luxembourg who were alleged to have received secret payments from big business.
At the time Sarkozy was at the ministry of interior and positioning himself for his 2007 presidential bid. But he was deeply mistrusted by Chirac, who wanted Villepin as his heir. Sarkozy believes the pair mounted an undercover conspiracy to damage his reputation and thus block his path to the Elysée.
The affair has shown French democracy in the meanest possible light. With a cast of characters that includes a Lebanese computer genius, a muck-raking journalist, an intelligence chief and the number two the aerospace company EADS, it suggests a devious world of secret networks and political skullduggery inhabited by a contemptuous Paris elite.
Posing as a champion of open government, Sarkozy said last week that “it is high time that the cabals and machinations of the Fifth Republic be brought to an end once and for all – no more victims”.
But he himself is not immune from the fall-out: according to Villepin’s camp, the president abused his position as head of the judiciary to ensure that the trial went ahead and thus wreak vengeance on his hated rival. One much-quoted remark has Sarkozy telling friends he would “see those responsible hung up on a meat-hook”.
The Clearstream affair broke in mid-2004 when a magistrate looking into illegal pay-backs from foreign defence contracts received anonymously a CD-ROM containing a list of supposedly undeclared bank accounts. Among the names were Bocsa and Nagy – which are part of Sarkozy’s full name.
It quickly became clear that the CD-ROM was fabricated, and investigators began the complex task of unravelling its origin. They now believe the list – originally without Sarkozy’s name – was compiled by Imad Lahoud, a Lebanese computer programmer working at EADS. He then passed it on to his superior, EADS vice-president Jean-Louis Gergorin.
A globe-trotting executive admired for his supposedly brilliant grasp of international affairs, Gergorin was a close friend of Villepin. Both products of the elite ENA administration school, they had worked together at a foreign affairs think-tank in Paris. In late 2003 Gergorin gave the list to Villepin – then foreign minister – who ordered intelligence chief General Philippe Rondot to conduct a discreet investigation.
But this is where uncertainty sets in. Lahoud has said that he added Sarkozy’s name to the list at the request of Gergorin and with Villepin’s knowledge. In testimony leaked earlier this month, Lahoud said that both Gergorin and Villepin regarded Sarkozy as “dangerous” and wanted him stopped.
But Lahoud has told several different stories and is widely regarded as an unreliable witness.
Prosecutors believe it is more likely that the decision to add Sarkozy’s name was Gergorin’s. For unconnected reasons (linked to a personal vendetta against industrial rivals) he was trying to interest Villepin in other names on the list, and may have added Sarkozy’s as a bait. The trial – in which Lahoud and Gergorin are also defendants – will try to establish at what point Villepin knew of Sarkozy’s presence on the list. At one extreme is the allegation that he conspired to put it there. At the other is Villepin’s own contention that he knew nothing of Sarkozy’s alleged involvement until much later.
In the middle is the claim which prosecutors think they have the best chance of standing up: that Villepin’s eye was indeed caught by Gergorin’s bait, and that even though he soon discovered the list was fake, he nonetheless encouraged its dissemination to the judge in the hope of bringing down Sarkozy.
Though few people understand the full complexities of the affair, it is brought alive by the visceral hatred that divides the protagonists: the diminutive man-on-the-make against the languid figure of the establishment. So deep is their evident mutual loathing, it begs the question how they ever managed to be part of the same government.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article